The past decade has seen great changes in curriculum development in
Technical and Further Education (TAFE) in Australia. Ten years ago trained
curriculum developers were still a rarity in the TAFE system, in spite
of the recommendation in the Kangan report (1974) that curriculum design
and development should become a top priority activity in the reform of
Australia's technical training. By the late 1970s serious attempts had
been made to make courses more relevant to what was expected in industry
and more attention was paid to consulting industry representatives. Subject
and course development, however, normally fell to senior teachers and administrators
in the TAFE system, content specialists rather than curriculum specialists.
Indeed, the first national core curriculum project, the Electrical Trade
project, convened as long ago as 1975, followed this model (Parkinson &
Broderick, 1988).

By the beginning of the 1980s NSW and Victoria had led the way in introducing
a new professionalism to the field. Elements of occupational research,
needs analysis, instructional design, curriculum and communications theory
found their way into the processes of curriculum decision making. Experts
came from the USA to run workshops and train curriculum workers. TAFE began
to employ graduates from new degree courses in curriculum studies in Australia
and overseas. TAFE Authorities set up curriculum development branches in
each state and territory and posts were advertised for curriculum developers,
educational technologists and instructional designers. The first half of
the 1980s also saw the establishment of the TAFE National Centre for Research
and Development in Adelaide, and the Curriculum Projects Steering Group
(now the Australian Committee on TAFE Curriculum) began its important work
setting up, funding and monitoring national and national core curriculum
projects. By this time several of the big national occupational analysis
projects had been launched.

As curriculum professionalism grew, so for a while did suspicion against
teachers "dabbling in curriculum issues they don't understand".
Teachers were contracted or seconded from colleges and expected to write
courses without sufficient knowledge of what they were doing. There were
seen to be too many "arm chair" developers, people who discovered
they were "good at writing objectives", for instance, and did
so without taking note of the broader contexts of course development. The
number of trained and experienced curriculum developers was small during
this period and there were wide variations between the philosophy, the
process and even the language of curriculum practice in each state and
territory. The Conference of TAFE Directors considered the situation important
enough in the mid 1980s to fund a series of research projects into this
new area of TAFE curriculum in the Australian context. These studies, carried
out through the TAFE National Centre during 1984-6, were seen as a method
of finding out what was going on in the different states and territories,
of sharing these experiences and of "training" new curriculum
practitioners in the field by making the research findings and reports
available to them.

It was in this context that the first edition of this book was written.
It was one of a series of TAFE curriculum studies looking at group process
methods of data collection (Anderson and Jones, 1986: Jones and Anderson,
1986); curriculum decision making (McBeath, 1986); curriculum media and
materials production (McBeath, 1985) and curriculum implementation (Kennedy,
Patterson and Williamson, 1984 and 1986).

This book was intended to look at the question of making curriculum
decisions, and in particular of translating occupational data into curriculum
documentation. As it happened, the study took on a much broader perspective
in response to the problems being experienced by curriculum developers
throughout the country at that time.

The nature of TAFE curriculum practice continued to change and take
on new perspectives as the late 1980s ushered in award restructuring and
the concepts of multi-skilling and skills formation. The central message
of curriculum decision making, however, remains as valid in 1991 as it
was in 1986. More people are required to work in the area of curriculum
revision and change than ever before and nowadays the greater majority
of TAFE teachers can expect to be involved in some kind of curriculum work
during their careers. The National Review of TAFE Teacher Preparation and
Development (Hall et al, 1990) has identified curriculum development as
amongst the important skills needed for the 1990s and all TAFE teacher
trainees will be expected to have some basic training in this area. The
case studies in this book, which were meant to give insights to curriculum
managers and developers in the mid 1980s, remain as valuable in the 1990s
for TAFE teachers, teacher trainees, or industry training officers, wanting
to learn something about curriculum processes and problems and how other
curriculum developers dealt with them.

From occupational analysis to curriculum decision making

Throughout Australia a significant amount of energy, finance and time
is expended by TAFE Authorities, government organisations and industry
groups in the analysis of various job and occupational areas. The purpose
of these projects is to establish the needs of industry for the training
of its recruits. Occupational analyses, on both state and national levels,
have produced enormous quantities of data on the requirements of areas
as diverse as tool making, beauty therapy and gardening. Such data are
to be translated into educational objectives and new and revised subjects
and courses built around them. The assumption is that when educationists
can see clearly what the requirements of industry are, they will make more
realistic decisions about the content, structure and accreditation of vocational
courses and produce better trained workers.

An occupational analysis allows a course designer to identify the skills
and abilities which need to be developed in the course of training. Course
content developed on the basis of an occupational analysis will be based
on objective information rather than subjective judgements.

Nowadays the language is harsher than that of the mid 1980s but the
principle is the same. For TAFE to effectively and efficiently respond
to the restructuring needs of industry, writes Groenhout (1990), TAFE

will need to become increasingly involved in the industrial process.
Industry is very much aware of its general training needs but often has
some difficulty in specifying its training requirements. It is here that
TAFE can and should respond and assist in the development of the training
requirements reflected in the new awards.

In the mid 1980s the reasons given to justify occupational analysis
were more educational and as much concerned with teacher and student needs
as with the needs of industry. Curricula designed around the findings of
occupational and task analysis would reassure employers that the skills
and knowledge of trainees corresponded to those they required for successful
employees. Vocational education programmes would have a definable relationship
with specific jobs, or groups of jobs. Outmoded tasks and techniques would
be eliminated from training. Time would not be wasted learning about materials
no longer used in industry. The use of modern equipment and technological
developments would be identified and incorporated into appropriate training
programmes. Students would be reassured that they would not become locked
into dead end jobs while shortages existed for trained personnel elsewhere.
State and industry funding and support would be more readily available
when educational need coincided with employment need. Colleges would have
less justification in neglecting areas which were difficult or expensive
to teach. Instructors would be more easily convinced that the procedures
in which they excelled when they did their training were not necessarily
pertinent to present day courses.

In the 1990s we are told that if TAFE training cannot respond to industry
needs, TAFE as an institution and indeed Australia's entire economic future,
will be at risk. "The requirements of the 1990s," write Bone
and Guthrie (1990)

mean a quantum leap in terms of TAFE's attention to curriculum content,
program design, award flexibility, modes of delivery and demonstrated student
competence. Curriculum development and its associated processes will be
the foundation on which this service will be built (p.2).

In these times of award restructuring in Australia, it is more important
than ever that vocational education be responsive to the employment market.
The starting point for curriculum decision making for vocational and technical
education lies in the use of successful methods of occupational data collection
and analysis. This is how TAFE assesses employment need.

There are dangers and shortcomings in basing vocational curriculum innovation
entirely on the needs of industry, as we shall see later, but as data collection
and analysis methods are developed and improved, few would argue that they
are not essential to curriculum developers in their work. It is in line
with the main thrust of curriculum theory during the past four decades
that the first step in course development should always be an assessment
of need (Tyler, 1949). Occupational analysis is seen as the approach best
suited to assessing the needs of industry and to providing part of the
data on which to develop industrial training programmes. Given the occupational
data, a curriculum developer, or development team, is expected to translate
them into plans for an educational programme.

Differences between TAFE and schools curriculum

Since Schwab, in 1969, called for the development of a practical and
eclectic set of principles to guide curriculum deliberation and decision
making, much has been written about the curriculum design stage. This is
the stage of decision making where the followers of the different philosophical
schools of thought frequently part company. This is the stage where adherents
of each model have something to say about the ideal way of making decisions.
The 1970s, according to Pratt (1980), was a decade of vigorous practice
and debate. "Whatever the deficiencies of curriculum design by the
end of the 1970s", he wrote, "they were not due to lack of effort".
More people, he stated, poured more energy into the theory and practice
of curriculum than ever before (p.37).

Most of this curriculum effort, however, pertains to schools based curriculum.
During the last forty years it was the needs of schools which spawned the
discipline of curriculum and it was in reference to primary and secondary
education that its major issues were first identified. The TAFE task force
on Procedures and Practices in Curriculum Development in NSW summed up
the problem as follows.

A ... problem for TAFE is that much of the curriculum literature available
refers to the curriculum process in the classroom, and is derived from
experiences in education at the primary and secondary school levels (Anderson
et al, 1982, p.15).

While TAFE curriculum developers benefit from reading about schools
based curriculum concepts and experiences of the 1970s and 80s, from Australia,
the UK and the USA, the problems and solutions of schools based curriculum
are sometimes difficult to transfer into practice in vocational education.
The answers it has found to questions regarding student needs, sequencing,
escalation, delivery methods, student assessment and course evaluation
are not necessarily relevant to vocational education for adults. Developers
in schools can make assumptions which cannot be made in TAFE. They are
not required to ask similar questions about the duration of a course, staffing
needs, attendance patterns, funding and accreditation, nor to approach
such matters with the same degree of choice as TAFE developers have. In
fact, schools based developers typically are warned to stay within the
parameters of accepted school practice and not attempt to vary the timetable,
grade level or the number of school days in a semester or year.

In the TAFE context these factors are open to change and are valid decision
making points. TAFE developers do not have to work within school type organisational
constraints. There are different constraints in vocational curriculum,
but normally there is more structural flexibility than would ever be found
in schools. Indeed, TAFE policy in most states and territories nowadays
insists on maximum flexibility in terms of timetables, location and methods
of delivery.

The NSW Task Force (Anderson et al, 1982) pointed out that the schools
based curriculum view contained in much of the literature does not "distinguish
between curriculum and instruction, between the planning of the outcomes
of curriculum and execution of the plan". They emphasise that implicit
in much of the schools based literature is the assumption that "a
teacher or a group of teachers are responsible for all the steps in the
process", whereas TAFE teachers have only "varying degrees of
input into the components involved" (p.15).

These words from the Tertiary Education Commission refer equally well
to teachers as curriculum developers and to teachers as classroom planners.

There are relevant differences between students and teachers in TAFE
and students and teachers in schools ... There is considerable evidence
that the teaching/learning process for mature TAFE students shares as many
differences with the teaching/learning process for school children as it
does similarities ... TAFE institutions present to their teachers attitudinal
and motivational challenges quite different from those faced by teachers
of adolescents in secondary schools (cited in Kennedy, 1985, p.56).

It is possible that, in schools, the very meaning of the curriculum
process is different from that used in vocational education. There is probably
no final answer to the old debate about process and product, but vocational
training has tended to be far more concerned with the product than schools,
and especially so when the training programme is based on occupational
data. There are indications that this may be changing as we enter the 1990s
and we shall discuss this later. Schools on the other hand have been committed
to the importance of process as part of their philosophy.

Vocational curriculum in the literature

While there is an abundance of literature on vocational curriculum,
much of it is from the United States and the bulk of it deals specifically
with occupational analysis. There is a paucity of work on the process of
translating occupational, and other, data into curriculum and on the philosophy
of developing training curricula. There has not been a published literature
on vocational curriculum equivalent to that on the schools. Much schools
based development concentrates on pragmatic and common sense decision making,
much of it with roots in interpretive and responsive methodologies. Curriculum
as technology, on the other hand, has been the most favoured approach in
TAFE (Blachford, 1986). This has been reflected in the objectives approach
favoured by most TAFE Authorities and manuals and handbooks based on the
Instructional Systems Model (TAFE Vic, 1980a), with which TAFE curriculum
developers in most states and territories are familiar.

The Instructional System Model is based upon systems theory. It is a
system for organising the curriculum development process. Its adherents
claim it is an open system, whereby vocational curriculum development processes
feeding into the system are processed to produce curriculum outputs such
as new courses, new modules, and new instructional materials (TAFE Vic,
1980a, p.15). The concept of the instructional systems model, it is argued
by its supporters, "is not a collection of techniques for developing
a curriculum". It must not be seen "as a lock/step process",
nor involve the "establishment of narrow, industry specific courses",
but rather it should deal with "the identification and detailing of
possible variables in a given situation" (p.14).

There is an abundance of procedural models related to the Instructional
Systems Model or based on the United States Armed Forces system of course
development. The object of such linear, or technological, models in the
majority of examples is to translate occupational data into lists of performance
objectives. From there, it is expected that the developer will be able
to make all further decisions to produce a training programme.

Given this level of content identification, the [Terminal Performance
Objectives] and associated task data now became the basis for accomplishing
the subsequent stages of curriculum development and instructional preparation,
including the sequencing and designing of learning experiences (Ammerman
and Essex, 1977, p.51).

A thorough analysis ... provides invaluable data. In addition to definition
of objectives, the procedure clarifies learning priorities, instructional
time estimates, and needed supplies, and provides guidance for the design
of instructional methodology and evaluation (Pratt, 1980, p.171).

A model of curriculum development is a schematic representation of the
step by step procedure somebody has used to develop a subject or course.
There are many different models, and most basic curriculum text books will
give several to choose from. For a while in the 1970s in particular it
seemed a new model emerged with every new project as practitioners tried
to better define their methods of analysis or recommend a new procedure.
Typical of the model which is referred to most often in TAFE curriculum
is probably the TAFE Victoria model referred to above. It is included here
because of its popularity and not because of any intrinsic value it has
over any other approach (see Figure 1).

However, in spite of lip service given to the Instructional Systems
Model and the behavioural objectives approach throughout the past decade,
there always has been a part of the literature of vocational education
in favour of more imagination and flexibility, as distinct from such restrictive
approaches. A number of writers and researchers claim that curriculum decision
making can never be contained in a flow chart or check list, but is dependent
on the quality of deliberation and interpersonal communication. Decker
Walker (1971; 1975) wrote up some case studies on the development of various
curriculum projects he observed in progress and proved that decision makers
did not keep to any regular linear order of tasks. The process of deliberation,
he believed, could take the decision making team down a whole number of
unexpected paths and end up with better quality decisions than could be
produced by the structured objectives model.

The argument in favour of a more deliberative approach is that curriculum
developers might miss important implications in the data if they interpret
it too literally. A competent typist, for instance, needs to have wider
skills than being able to type so many words per minute. A good training
course must include some learning about how that typist will cope effectively
with new situations on the job. These "hidden" competencies are
much harder to deal with using the objectives model.

Field (1990) compared task skills with the visible part of an iceberg
floating in murky waters. It is easy to gather data and write learning
objectives for task skills that are routine and predictable; involve a
sequence of steps; have a definite start and finish; and produce a tangible
outcome. It is much harder to discover data on, or to write learning objectives
for, task management skills, work environment skills, workplace learning
skills and interpersonal skills, all of which he says are hidden "under
the surface" like the submerged part of an iceberg (p.30).

Figure 1. A systems model in linear format
(TAFE Vic, 1980b)

It is for the sake of dealing with problems such as these, that many
curriculum writers advocate making curriculum decisions based on pragmatism,
exploring the implications and deliberating on the outcomes. Only through
such methods will curriculum developers be able to write curricula that
are more flexible and imaginative than just a list of performance objectives
and to introduce appropriate cognitive processes and critical dialogue
into TAFE training courses.

Curriculum developers are by now familiar with much of the language,
and in most cases would understand and accept the meaning of the words
in context. It is when a developer tries to choose the best word in his
or her own context that confusion occurs. Consistency is difficult to attain
unless the developer chooses to follow one model and ignore the others.

Curriculum vocabulary is transferred across models apparently with difficulty.
Does a competency include knowledge and behaviour? Can a behavioural objective
include attitudes and knowledge - or "knowledges" as we frequently
find it in the literature? What is the difference between mastery and achievement?
When should enabling objectives be tested? There are two sets of implications
in the word "content". "Competency" can be used as
a standard of performance or as a complex group of tasks and skills which
become the basis of performance based instruction. The concepts of norm
referencing and criterion referencing lead to endless debates over marks
and mastery. The term "mastery learning" is used both as a general
term and in a very specific context. And there are those ubiquitous plurals
- syllabuses or syllabi, curriculums or curricula, not to mention the inexplicable
rarity of the adjective "curricular".

There is little consensus in the literature, and the confusion is compounded
when developers from Australia's eight TAFE Authorities meet together to
attempt curriculum projects on a national scale. Field (1990) wrote, when
trying to come to grips with the terminology of skill formation,

Terms like "skill", "competency" and "job"
are used in different ways by different people, and this has led to a lot
of confusion. The term "skill" is particularly problematic. If
a group of trainers or TAFE teachers were asked to write down the meaning
of the term "skill", many would probably come up with statements
such as:

the ability to produce something;

work that involves hands-on behaviour;

something you need (along with knowledge) to do a job (p.23).

There appears to be a further lack of consensus on the meaning of the
word curriculum and the role of the curriculum developer. Many published
accounts of curriculum projects, especially those coming from the United
States, are described as "process manuals", but make no further
claim beyond the achievement of "a curriculum outline". One might
question the usefulness of an "outline" to busy instructors.
However it is the nebulous use of the word curriculum which is at issue.
Forgione and Kopp (1979, p.v) describe a vocational curriculum development
project as "acquiring, organising and describing information on ...
occupational areas", and then "matching available curriculum
materials with" it. Haworth (1980) complains

More often than not the syllabus outcome of the programmes developed
is a list of behavioural objectives structured in an order considered appropriate
to facilitate training and to supposedly lead to "employability in
the world of work" (p.9).

Ammerman and Essex refer to curriculum as "a structured series
of intended learning outcomes" (1977, p.43), and indeed they end up
with little more than a list of structured behavioural objectives.

Gullion (1973, p.22) argued that curriculum development as such must
be separated from programme design and instructional planning and that
separate expertise is needed at each stage. She sees it as "the teacher's
responsibility", for instance, "to plan learning experiences,
to select appropriate ... content ... and to select materials" (p.28).
In a significant number of writings, curriculum developers consciously
isolate themselves from the issues of professional educationists, with
the clear expectation that the educationist will pick up where they leave
off. Others contend that the curriculum expert and the teacher must work
together on every stage of development. Shahid Khan (1983) advocated, "For
each course the curriculum developer should provide assistance to the teachers
in regard to how to teach the course". Many teachers, however, would
feel that this is going too far.

Bone and Guthrie (1990) continue the debate, asking at which point the
process of curriculum development can be regarded as finished. It would
be simple to say that the curriculum is finished when the programme has
been accredited, they say, or after it has been "scrutinised and has
been found acceptable" (p.15). However they go on to say that it is
impossible to distinguish clearly between the various stages. "Implementation
issues need to be considered during the design and development stages"
and, conversely, curriculum design decisions certainly influence implementation.

For the purpose of this book, I would like to define curriculum as a
process not a product. Curriculum can be regarded as the process of individuals
or groups making decisions about the selection and organisation of educational
aims, objectives, content, instructional strategies, evaluation procedures
and learning materials. The curriculum process consists of making decisions.
All curriculum documents and curriculum materials are the products of this
decision making process.

If there are confusions in the terminology and with the role of the
curriculum developer in the development process, there is even more of
a plethora of conflicting ideas about procedure. It is not practicable
here, nor particularly useful, to attempt to compare the many recommended
versions of vocational curriculum development procedure. In real life the
model adopted often depends on the nature of the occupational data collected,
where the developers begin and in what order they decide to proceed. In
other words, curriculum developers usually make up their own procedures
to suit each different task. Some begin, (and some end) with a statement
of objectives, while others begin by determining the programme structure
before they define objectives. Some decide on "content" and call
it "objectives", while others sequence the content into learning
units before writing the objectives. Some specify the learning process
before identifying topics or outcomes. Most vocational curriculum ends
up with objectives of some kind, because that is what is specified by the
TAFE Authority, the state accreditation body and by the national registration
guidelines (ACTA until 1989). How these objectives were derived and how
thoroughly they are written is far from consistent across the country.

The structure and procedure of curriculum development will vary also
according to the type of course which is being developed. There will be
different kinds of needs analyses required for course development for apprenticeships,
post trade or special short courses for industry and those in the New Opportunities
for Women (NOW), Traineeship, or Aboriginal Access programmes. People in
the para professional or middle level certificate courses do not need the
task level analysis required in putting together a trade or operative training
level programme. Gough (1981) suggests one reason for the different kind
of course development process usually followed in the Certificate, Associate
Diploma and Diploma level courses in TAFE.

Middle-level certificate courses are clearly vocational, in the sense
that they are designed to lead directly to employment, and they usually
purport to equip students with the skills and competencies they will need
in their employment, yet ... these courses have generally been taught using
a subject-centred curriculum. The subjects of the curriculum are often
derived as much from the traditional disciplines as from the skills of
the vocation (p.83).

Although many writers stress the importance of procedural structure,
very few appear to have recognised the inherent problem - that of trying
to define the procedure. The Oregon State Department of Education (1977)
stated, "There is no official, standardised procedure for curriculum
development" and claims it should be seen rather as "common sense
by design" (p.25).

Sequencing of curriculum elements will be looked at in more detail in
chapter 3, but a few examples here will indicate the lack of clear direction
that was coming out of the literature in earlier times. Ammerman and Essex
were referring to the sequence of learning outcomes when they wrote

... the problem of ordering or structuring remains an important challenge
for the future. There needs to be a means for indicating any necessary
or preferable groupings. This structuring should be one that promotes ...
learning ... It may not be the same as task groupings found in the work
setting, such as intended by the duty categories suggested for the occupational
survey listings of tasks (1977, p.43).

Writing in the schools based context, but on a matter familiar to the
vocational curriculum developer, Posner and Strike (1976) identified content
structure as a generally unknown area.

The question of how content should be sequenced and ordered has been
the subject of educational debate for at least the past 10 years ... However,
no satisfactory answer has been developed, and no adequate prescription
is expected in the near future (p.665).

Gaps in the curriculum process

Strong claims have been made for the importance of occupational survey
and analysis methods as a basis for curriculum development. Their greatest
value obviously lies in the contact they provide between the training institution
and industry, and their up to date description of occupations and jobs.
They may also include an analysis of job tasks and skills and empirical
data on the importance of tasks and how frequently they are practised.
From this, the relevance and significance of each task should become clear.
Pratt (1980) claims that these data, correctly analysed, enable the developer
to define objectives, clarify learning priorities and estimate instructional
time and supplies needed. They should also "provide guidance for the
design of instructional methodology and evaluation" (p.171). This
might be an exaggerated claim, but even further claims are made by others.

The utilization of the Task Analysis Process in the curriculum planning
process produces a clear concise description of the educational program,
its occupational relationships, objectives, the scope and sequence of its
courses, course content and prerequisite and requisite requirements. (Ripley
and Arredondo, n.d., p.2).

Others direct what should be done with the information, without indicating
the link between such decisions and the data.

Once an analysis of the job has been undertaken, student performance
objectives should be prepared after tasks which do not require training
have been eliminated and tasks which cannot be taught entirely in the training
environment have been modified (TAFE Vic, 1980, p.38).

It appears that many writers believe that the analysis of occupational
data is enough to point the way to making sound decisions about educationally
valid vocational courses. The NSW team (Anderson et al, 1982) sums up the
problem inherent in this assumption.

... data gathered for determining what it is to be learned, will not
necessarily and directly support decisions about planning instruction ...
When, in various linear models, sequences of activities are described,
the inference is that once the training objectives are established, all
other decisions can be derived in a logical progression (p.19).

A very thorough and detailed document on curriculum development procedures
used by TAFE in one state is a typical example of the assumptions often
made. The initial curriculum proposal requires a "discussion"
of the central questions; the Curriculum Committee must provide "interactive
advice" on them to the manager of the working party; the working party
must "analyse", "clarify", "develop", "devise"
and "prepare" statements on them; the Curriculum Committee, the
endorsing college, the Academic Review Panel and the Accreditation Panel
must approve them; but not one of these bodies has the benefit of a clear
set of guidelines on which to base its decision making. All decisions presumably
emanate from the "professional judgement" of the members of the
various committees and panels.

An occasional article highlights the very obvious gaps by attempting
to bridge them subjectively. "Importance is a relative, value judgement
which must be made by the curriculum writer," state Ripley and Arredondo
(p.13). "There is no way ... to completely remove professional judgement
from the curriculum identification process," add Ammerman and Essex
(1977, p.33). "There is really no recipe for bringing about successful
change, past some well tried methods that seem to have worked in other
situations" (Kennedy, 1985, p.55). The implication is that either
enormous intuitive leaps are being made by curriculum developers - professional
judgements based on knowledge and experience rather than conclusions based
empirically on the data - or else some very important questions are not
being dealt with in an otherwise tightly defined procedure.